State v. O'Kelly
| Citation | 204 S.E.2d 672,285 N.C. 368 |
| Decision Date | 15 May 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 71,71 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. James Franklin O'KELLY, III. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Robert Morgan, Atty. Gen. by R. Bruce White, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., and Guy A. Hamlin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raleigh, for the State.
L. Stanley Brown, Charlotte, for defendant-appellant.
By the present appeal, the defendant shallenges the refusal of the court to grant his motion to dismiss the charges on the ground his constitutional rights to a speedy trial had been denied. At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, the record shows conclusively that the defendant was in no way responsible for the delay, but was insisting on a speedy trial for fear delay would rob him of witnesses material to his defense.
The State did not see fit to offer explanation or excuse for the delay. If witnesses die or disappear during a delay, the prejudice is obvious. Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374, 89 S.Ct. 575, 21 L.Ed.2d 607 (1969); United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116, 86 S.Ct. 773, 15 L.Ed.2d 627 (1966). State v. Johnson, 275 N.C. 264, 167 S.E.2d 274.
The determination whether the constitutional right of a speedy trial has been violated involves four main factors: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) the defendant's assertion of his right to speedy trial; and (4) prejudice resulting to the defendant from the delay. State v. Brown, 282 N.C. 117, 191 S.E.2d 659 (). See also Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972).
The court's findings of fact Numbers 7, 8 and 11, in the light of the authorities cited, offer ample support for and require the conclusion that the defendant's rights to a speedy trial were denied him. The trial court's conclusions of law Numbers 2 and 4 are without support either in the evidence or in the findings.
In State v. Wheeler, 249 N.C. 187, 105 S.E.2d 615, this Court disposed of a problem similar to that now before us.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Berryman
...U.S. 838, 122 S.Ct. 93, 151 L.Ed.2d 54 (2001); State v. Jones, 310 N.C. 716, 721, 314 S.E.2d 529, 532-33 (1984); State v. O'Kelly, 285 N.C. 368, 371, 204 S.E.2d 672, 674 (1974). When presented with the issue of whether an individual's rights were violated due to prevention or delay of an ap......
-
State v. Smith
...101 (1972); State v. Hill, 287 N.C. 207, 214 S.E.2d 67 (1975); State v. Gordon, 287 N.C. 118, 213 S.E.2d 708 (1975); State v. O'Kelly, 285 N.C. 368, 204 S.E.2d 672 (1974); State v. Frank, 284 N.C. 137, 200 S.E.2d 169 (1973); State v. Brown, 282 N.C. 117, 191 S.E.2d 659 (1972); State v. Harr......
-
State v. Hill
...v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972); United States v. Macino, 486 F.2d 750 (7th Cir. 1973); State v. O'Kelly, 285 N.C. 368, 204 S.E.2d 672 (1974); State v. Brown, 282 N.C. 117, 191 S.E.2d 659 (1972) (citing nine cases); State v. Harrell, 281 N.C. 111, 187 S.E.2d 789......
-
State v. Wright
...incarcerated, it jeopardizes his chances for a parole, for proper good behavior credits, and for work release. State v. O'Kelly, 285 N.C. 368, 204 S.E.2d 672 (1974); State v. White,270 N.C. 78, 153 S.E.2d 774 (1967). Here, however, defendant has failed to show the existence of a detainer ag......